Techno-Fatalism vs. Free Will: Are We Doomed to an Eternal Race with Cybercrime?

[Professor]

Abstract: Confronted with the rising tide of cybercrime, particularly in the realm of carding, public opinion vacillates between two poles. On the one hand, techno-fatalism: the conviction that technological progress inexorably generates new vulnerabilities, and that criminals are always one step ahead, making the fight hopeless. On the other, faith in free will and human ingenuity: the belief that we are capable of creating not only tools but also meanings, ethics, and social systems to curb them. This article offers a calm exploration of this philosophical tension. Not to provide a definitive answer, but to understand how this dilemma shapes our attitudes toward security, trust, and the future of digital civilization.

Introduction: Scylla and Charybdis of the Digital Age​

Imagine two possible futures. One is a world where every financial transaction is risky, where trust has been completely destroyed, and technology serves primarily to increase control and surveillance over everyone, protecting them from the few. The other is a world where the digital environment is as safe and predictable as clean air or running water, where cybercrime is a marginal relic of the past. Where do we stand on the path between these two points? The answer depends on whether we adopt a fatalistic or a voluntaristic philosophical stance.

1. Techno-Fatalic Arguments: Why the Race Seems Hopeless​

Techno-fatalism looks at the history of technology and sees in it a law: every new good gives rise to a new evil, and the speed of their emergence only increases.

• Irreparable asymmetry: A defender must cover all vulnerabilities. An attacker only needs to find one. Defense is a convergent task (all risks must be eliminated). Attack is a divergent task (finding one path is enough). This mathematical and logical asymmetry is inherent in the very nature of security.
• The Law of Unintended Consequences: Social media was created for communication, but it has spawned infodemics and triggers for phishing. Cryptocurrencies were conceived as a way to free people from banks, but they have become the perfect tool for money laundering and ransomware. Every new technology comes with a "dark side" that its creators could not or did not want to foresee.
• Adversary Adaptability: Cybercrime is not a static phenomenon, but a highly adaptive ecosystem. It utilizes the same advanced tools (artificial intelligence, big data) as defense. It's an arms race, with the adversary facing fewer bureaucratic and ethical constraints.
• The end of privacy as the price of security? The fatalist argues: total security requires total transparency. To catch the "cyberghost," everyone else will have to accept digital surveillance, biometric tracking, and constant behavioral scanning. We are doomed to either insecurity or the loss of freedom.

This logic leads to the conclusion: cybercrime, like a disease, is incurable. It can only be contained and its symptoms alleviated, but it cannot be eradicated. We are doomed to an eternal, exhausting race.

2. Free Will Arguments: Why Race Is a Choice and a Chance​

Free will advocates see technology not as a fate, but as a source of creativity. The problem, they argue, is not the technology itself, but how we humans choose to use it, regulate it, and weave it into the social fabric.

• History as a source of hope: Humanity has overcome seemingly ineradicable threats before. Piracy on sea routes, plague epidemics, street crime in megacities—none of these have disappeared completely, but have been radically curbed not by technological advances alone, but by a combination of technology, law, social institutions, and changing social norms. Security is not a product, but a process, a social contract.
• Security by Design: We don't have to play catch-up forever. New systems (quantum communications, self-executing smart contracts, decentralized identifiers) can be built with security built into their architecture, not tacked on later. It's a matter of priorities and investment.
• The power of collective intelligence and cooperation: While criminals unite in anonymous networks, defenders are often divided by corporate and national boundaries. Overcoming this divide is an act of collective will. Creating global, trusted platforms for sharing threat information, harmonizing legislation, and public-private partnerships are choices we can make.
• Fostering a digital culture: Security isn't just about firewalls, it's also about habits. Educational programs that foster critical thinking and digital hygiene in children can reduce the effectiveness of social engineering, just as handwashing reduced mortality from infections. It's a long, but sure path.

This logic leads to a different conclusion: cybercrime is a complex social problem that can be addressed systemically. The race is not endless; it is a developmental phase that can be navigated by making a conscious choice in favor of an architecture of trust, cooperation, and education.

3. The Third Way: The dialectic of the race is not a struggle, but an evolution​

Perhaps the very formulation of the question "Are we doomed?" is flawed. It presupposes a static goal—"winning." But what if racing isn't a pathology, but a form of existence for a complex adaptive system ?

• Race as a driver of progress: Pressure from cybercrime is forcing us to accelerate cryptography development, improve algorithms, implement biometrics, and develop artificial intelligence for behavioral analysis. Many technologies that make our digital lives more convenient were refined or created under the influence of threats.
• Rethinking "Security": Absolute security does not exist in either the physical or digital world. It's not about eliminating risk, but about managing risk and building resilience. A system that can quickly detect an incident, contain the damage, and restore operations is often better than a fragile "impenetrable fortress."
• The evolution of crime itself: Under the pressure of effective protection, crime may not disappear, but rather mutate into less destructive forms or shift to other areas. Society's task is not to win the race once and for all, but to continually guide its evolution toward less social harm.

In this light, we are not condemned to a race; we are engaged in a co-evolution of technology and society. The question is not whether it will end, but what rules and values will guide its course.

4. Practical Philosophy: How to Live with a Dilemma​

While philosophers debate, we need to act. Perhaps the healthiest position lies in rejecting extremes.

• Reject fatalism, because it paralyzes the will, justifies inaction, and leads to capitulation to chaos. Acknowledge difficulties, yes, but don't turn them into absolutes.
• Reject naive voluntarism, because it underestimates the complexity of systemic problems and leads to disappointment when simple solutions fail. Maintain hope, yes, but back it up with patience and systematic work.
• Adopt a "reasonable optimism for action": This is a position that acknowledges the scale of the challenge but believes in the ability of human reason, united by shared values (security, privacy, justice), to find solutions. This is a path of constant dialogue: between technologists and humanists, between regulators and innovators, between law enforcement and privacy advocates.

Conclusion: Race as a Creative Tension​

The question "Are we doomed?" ultimately boils down to our belief in ourselves. Techno-fatalism is a form of despair, rooted in fear of the world's complexity. Faith in free will is a form of hope, rooted in faith in the human capacity for cooperation, learning, and moral choice.

The race against cybercrime is unlikely to end. But its nature could change dramatically. It could remain a destructive war of attrition, or it could transform into a creative tension that will spur us to build smarter, more transparent, and simultaneously more respectful of human dignity systems.

We are not condemned to an eternal race. We are called to eternal vigilance and creativity —to answer anew with each new technological advance: what kind of digital world do we want to see? A world of fear and control, or a world of trust and opportunity? The answer to this question is our free will, realized here and now, in every law, in every line of code, in every digital literacy lesson. This is our destiny, which we write ourselves.